Appeal: explicit argument
From FULL Muslim Lantern Vs Jay Dyer Debate / SNEAKO - Islam / Christianity.
- #62116:43upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… do you believe that they are then ase [a se] or self existent? If they're self existent, then you have, what, 99 gods. So you have the same problem, but a double standard into as to how you answer that. I'm not saying note [now] that you believe that the attributes of persons. I know you don't believe that.” quote corrected
Diogenes: He states a clean dilemma about the divine attributes and simultaneously blocks the straw man by disclaiming a position his opponent does not hold.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer opened by arguing that Islam's doctrine of tawhid faces the same one-and-many problem regarding Allah's attributes that Muslims raise against the Trinity, and he has held and developed that argument throughout, including this line. The quote lays out a genuine dilemma with premises and conclusion (attributes are either self-existent, yielding 99 gods, or dependent, yielding the same one-and-many problem he says Muslims level at the Trinity), and he explicitly disclaims a position he knows his opponent doesn't hold, forestalling a straw man rather than committing one. This is a real explicit argument central to his case, consistent with what he opened with.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay lays out a clear premise-conclusion structure: the attributes of Allah are either a se (self-existent), which yields 99 gods, or dependent on Allah's essence, which mirrors the one-and-many problem he says Christians face with the Trinity's persons — hence a double standard in how the objection is applied. He also explicitly disclaims attributing to Lantern a view he doesn't hold ("I'm not saying... that you believe the attributes are persons. I know you don't believe that"), which keeps the dilemma from becoming a misrepresentation. This is the argument the two spend much of the middle third of the debate contesting, so it is a substantive, engaged move rather than idle rhetoric.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer declared in his opening statement that Islam's doctrine of tawhid faces the same one-and-many/dependence problem as the Trinity via the attributes, and he presses this exact dilemma (dependent vs. self-existent attributes) repeatedly for the rest of the debate (e.g., again at ~33:43-34:40); the called line is a restatement/first statement of that standing thesis, not a departure. The quote lays out a genuine dilemma with premises (attributes are either self-existent or dependent) and a conclusion (self-existence yields many gods, dependence mirrors the trinitarian problem he is defending against), and includes an explicit disclaimer distinguishing this from a straw man he is not making ('I'm not saying you believe the attributes are persons'). This is a clean instance of explicit argument, central and repeated, so major severity is defensible.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.